The random online dictionary cites a number of references rather than the one. Additionally, and somewhat humorously, you also seem to be suggesting that I head a conspiracy of dubious online etymological and medical dictionaries, which is rather clownshoes.

That's rather a side point, though, as at least you seem to be tacitly admitting your previous assertion as to the exclusive meaning of the term under discussion is in error. You yourself provided the evidence.

Counterpoint:

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "

/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?

//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

demaL-demaL-yeH:demaL-demaL-yeH: Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Farkage: In addition, I didn't use the term 'gun grabber', so I guess that's another fabrication on your part to try to sound more important. Have you actually listened to the entire Heller audio? Because I think your incredible wisedom and knowledge should be provided to the Supreme Court, as they are obviously not as smart and educated as you believe yourself to be.

I'm going to have to grade you "Needs Improvement" for reading comprehension./Work on it with your mom.

And you again talk around what I said without addressing mg last comments. I know you can't address them without admitting you're wrong, so you pretend they aren't there.Nice try troll.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Thanks for the link,

""A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." "

Current left-wing spin, meet actual Reagan quote:"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."

So your first pic is accurate, and the "quiz" is made of out-of-context bullshiat.

Boojum2k:demaL-demaL-yeH: Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Current left-wing spin, meet actual Reagan quote:"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."

So your first pic is accurate, and the "quiz" is made of out-of-context bullshiat.

TuteTibiImperes:Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes:When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed. I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.

No it didn't. Violence isn't related to the 'number of guns floating around'. Rights, however, and the ability to defend them, are. It is NEVER acceptable to revoke Constitutional, or basic human rights. That's why we have things like Constitutions and governments. Any time either are abusive, they must be abolished and a new, better version implemented.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Thanks for the link,

""A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." "

theprinceofwands:Good for them. I certainly would refuse as well, and encourage others to do the same. There's nothing the government can do when the people stand together.

Well, actually, they could arrest anyone who fails to register, convict them, and throw them in jail. If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.

Added bonus, once they're convicted they'll lose their rights to vote, making it easier to pass firearm safety legislation in the future.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?

Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

Now but I would love to know why you're using a german word to describe me in a manner which is pretty inconsistent with my comments in the thread. Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?

No, that wasn't your whacky idea.Whacky idea part 1, and I quote:It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military serviceWhacky idea part 2, quote againI'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.We meet in the equivalent of the town square, drill, train, and qualify with our arms and ammunition, which are inspected.Every person 16 legally present in the United States and over until death dost thou part participates to the fullest extent possible - participation mandatory and with real penalties attached for missing drill.Alternative service is done by felons, the mentally ill, physically disabled, and conscientious objectors.Everybody is screened, physically and mentally for fitness for duty, and must meet minimum standards.You can own whatever firearms you qualify with, and you must keep them in proper repair and properly secured.Crew-served weapons are stored at the armory.

It's what the Swiss do.It's what the Founders did.It's what the Constitution specifically calls for.There's nothing whacky about it.It lets us cut the DoD budget and ensures that people of draft age are physically and mentally fit, and are competent with firearms.What the fark is your problem with that?Are you one of those entitlement types who believes that rights don't come with concomitant responsibilities?

Except that you're utterly and totally wrong that the founders did that, or that the constitution calls for it, thereby nullifying everything you say. As usual, since you're nothing but a lying, ignorant troll.

See, when you start from false premises, you wind up like lemaD here, babbling random inanities.Dude, no one takes you seriously.

Facts. Citations. Primary sources. Contemporaneous accounts.I link debates in the Congressional Record, the Constitution, the original texts of Amendment II, and the laws the Founders passed.I get in return fake George Washington quotes.Put up or shut up.

See, when you start from false premises, you wind up like lemaD here, babbling random inanities.Dude, no one takes you seriously.

[rsp.pca.org image 600x386]

Facts. Citations. Primary sources. Contemporaneous accounts.I link debates in the Congressional Record, the Constitution, the original texts of Amendment II, and the laws the Founders passed.I get in return fake George Washington quotes.Put up or shut up.

redmid17:I have no farking idea. Then again, why would you use a foreign word to describe a "holy" trinity and project it as my primary set of values unless you had a different agenda./heilig = holy

Considering his babbling and use of out-of-context lines of law while ignoring the rest of the text and actual case law, and his earlier ludicrous claim that Heller decided registration because the SC didn't go off-point to address it, I wouldn't believe much of what he says.

Securitywyrm:demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late). Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

Mild depression? That's a mental illness, you may not have a gun.Grandpa is living with you and has Alzheimers Disease? He has access to your guns, you may not have a gun.Attention deficit disorder is also a "mental illness." Are you saying I shouldn't be able to have a gun? By the way, I served four years in the US Army. If I'm trusted with an M203 grenade launcher, I think I can be trusted with a 9mm.

Don't forget that until very recently homosexuality was also a mental illness in the dsm. It's been removed, but equally ridiculous things still exist.

Piizzadude:Boojum2k: Piizzadude: It does not say that the second amendment cannot come with terms and conditions

And yet, as seen in the past, and now with California and New York (that story seems more credible given the lack of any rebuttal), government officials are pretty complacent about stepping across that fine line directly into infringement.

Therefore, the line must drawn further back to remove that opportunity from them.

All the way up to taking them from you, there is nothing wrong. When they say no one can have a gun anymore, I will be right there with you.

Registering, reasonable background checks, any type of safety (as long as it is easily released by the registered owner) are all ok. Advisable even.

Except that we disagree, and you aren't in charge of deciding for others.

Boojum2k:redmid17: I have no farking idea. Then again, why would you use a foreign word to describe a "holy" trinity and project it as my primary set of values unless you had a different agenda./heilig = holy

Considering his babbling and use of out-of-context lines of law while ignoring the rest of the text and actual case law, and his earlier ludicrous claim that Heller decided registration because the SC didn't go off-point to address it, I wouldn't believe much of what he says.

I mean I doubt registration would be considered unconstitutional. It's survived more than a few legal challenges IIRC, but I don't think SCOTUS really had anything to say about it other than Heller agreed to it.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

See, when you start from false premises, you wind up like lemaD here, babbling random inanities.Dude, no one takes you seriously.

[rsp.pca.org image 600x386]

Facts. Citations. Primary sources. Contemporaneous accounts.I link debates in the Congressional Record, the Constitution, the original texts of Amendment II, and the laws the Founders passed.I get in return fake George Washington quotes.Put up or shut up.

/By the way, you misspelled obscenities.

How about you answer my question?

He won't. He ignores questions that would prove him wrong. I've been waiting for a response for a while, and I know if he does actually respond, he'll simply ignore things he can't address. He's a troll, pure and simple.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?

Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

Now but I would love to know why you're using a german word to describe me in a manner which is pretty inconsistent with my comments in the thread. Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?

The English phrase is problematic because it is one of the Christian names for their god, so my use of it unmodified might offend, whereas the mixed language reference is clearly satirical hyperbole.

Daemonik:Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

Wrong. Well regulated meant practiced, or capable. It meant people knowing how to shoot. This has been covered ad nauseum by experts and supported fully with primary sources.

theprinceofwands:Except that you're utterly and totally wrong that the founders did that, or that the constitution calls for it, thereby nullifying everything you say. As usual, since you're nothing but a lying, ignorant troll.

The originals are quoted and linked upthread. Is this an attempt to sway the lazy and gullible, those with profound reading comprehension issues, and those with the attention span of a gnat?

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

And yet.... Georgie himself said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. "/go B rabbit!!

The very same George Washington who, as Commander-in-Chief, saddled up and led troops in the field to crush an insurrection?//History, facts, and reality are not kind to your views. Mayhap you should change them.

So he knows wtf he is talking about now dont he? Sorta been there, done that kinda way huh?

Sorry. Forgot a link./Enjoy.//It's like the Zombie Reagan vs. REAL Reagan when it comes to gun control.Zombie Reagan:[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 604x720]

///Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Why do you keep bringing up Reagan?

Aren't Reagan, guns, and money your heilige trinity?

Now but I would love to know why you're using a german word to describe me in a manner which is pretty inconsistent with my comments in the thread. Are you, as a jewish veteran, trying to Godwin me?

The English phrase is problematic because it is one of the Christian names for their god, so my use of it unmodified might offend, whereas the mixed language reference is clearly satirical hyperbole.

Yes it was extremely clear* that it was hyperbole and satirical in nature. That was why my first inclination was to ask if you were Godwinning me.

*it's not

Try again and, to clarify, no those do not constitute my holy trinity. BTW, that should only offend someone if you capitalize it (Holy Trinity ). It's much more often referred to as the Holy Ghost. Uncapitalized it means nothing to Christian.

TuteTibiImperes:Magnanimous_J: Honest question for those who support this law: How would the government maintaining a list of perfectly legal firearms prevent those firearms from being used in a shooting?

They may not prevent a shooting, but if you know Bill Weston on Elk Ct has an AR15, and someone is shot with an AR15, it gives you a place to start your investigation.

Additionally, if someone is convicted of a felony or judged to be mentally incompetent the police will know to go retrieve the guns.

Finally, it provides an additional charge to levy against those who have them illegally. With the right companion legislation the police could even be given the right to demand anyone carrying one in public display their valid registration card, so someone up to no good could potentially be stopped before they did anything if they didn't have the gun legally.

So it won't do anything to save any lives, but it MIGHT give police a slight advantage in solving crimes committed with weapons that make up an insignificantly small % of all violent crimes?

Is that worth a massive violation of the constitution and harassment of law abiding citizens? If it were my state, I'd tell them to eat a dick.

smoky2010:dittybopper: smoky2010: The problem is that if you don't register, and you're caught, you are now a felon. You know what that means, you are no longer allowed to own or possess firearms. They will then confiscate ALL of your guns.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the possibility of being a felon is not something I want on my record. I do not want to seriously restrict my future employment because I made a stand over registering magazines (that they state already knows I own anyway because I bought them legally).

You know, if there are a whole lot of those cases where Joe Upstandingcitizen, Boy Scout leader, Little League coach, never been in any serious trouble beyond a traffic ticket, gets arrested for having an unregistered gun, and made into a felon by fiat, not because he hurt somebody, but because he owned something he believed it was his right to own under the Constitution of the United States, and common law stretching back to before the US even existed, how do you think juries and voters are going to react to that?

But hey, that's fine. You want to register them to avoid legal sanctions now, go right ahead. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

You must not live in CT. The juries here would eat you alive! As someone with a professional career, in a highly regulated industry, I cannot afford a felony on my record. If you can, good for you. You can tack your criminal record to your wall next to your tin-foil hat.

Also, don't forget that even if you did win your court case, you would never get your guns back. It would take years to make it to court, and by that time, your guns would have been melted down to puddles years earlier. Also, whenever you went for a new job and someone googled our name and saw that you were arrested for not following the laws, I think your chances of getting that job would be seriously restricted. No, it's not legal and you'll never know about it. Unless, of course, y ...

Dimensio:I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.

If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.

theprinceofwands:Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.

If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.

redmid17:theprinceofwands: Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.

If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.

TuteTibiImperes:theprinceofwands: Good for them. I certainly would refuse as well, and encourage others to do the same. There's nothing the government can do when the people stand together.

Well, actually, they could arrest anyone who fails to register, convict them, and throw them in jail. If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.

Added bonus, once they're convicted they'll lose their rights to vote, making it easier to pass firearm safety legislation in the future.

Works with small groups, not huge swaths of the population. You can't simply incarcerate 1/3 of a nation, or even declare them felons as it would decimate the ability of the nation to function. en masse, the people are impervious to control.

Magnanimous_J:TuteTibiImperes: Magnanimous_J: Honest question for those who support this law: How would the government maintaining a list of perfectly legal firearms prevent those firearms from being used in a shooting?

They may not prevent a shooting, but if you know Bill Weston on Elk Ct has an AR15, and someone is shot with an AR15, it gives you a place to start your investigation.

Additionally, if someone is convicted of a felony or judged to be mentally incompetent the police will know to go retrieve the guns.

Finally, it provides an additional charge to levy against those who have them illegally. With the right companion legislation the police could even be given the right to demand anyone carrying one in public display their valid registration card, so someone up to no good could potentially be stopped before they did anything if they didn't have the gun legally.

So it won't do anything to save any lives, but it MIGHT give police a slight advantage in solving crimes committed with weapons that make up an insignificantly small % of all violent crimes?

Is that worth a massive violation of the constitution and harassment of law abiding citizens? If it were my state, I'd tell them to eat a dick.

It may save lives. I mean, simply being registered won't prevent a gun from firing at another person, but if it helps get guns out of the hands of the criminally inclined and unstable, and helps the police catch those who misuse them, that could easily save lives.

Your point about assault weapons being used in only a small fraction of crimes is well taken, the registry should really be mandatory for all firearms.

Going to a website and entering a serial number or mailing in a little card is hardly an onerous burden to place on gun owners.

redmid17:theprinceofwands: Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.

If you're not trolling then you're ignorant, evil, or both. Whichever it is I hope you soon cease to pollute our world.

He's trolling

Thank god...seen too many of those be real in my time...not sure how much more I could take and still bother with humanity.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.

This, fark, is the poster child for people who should not be walking around armed in public.